One of the most controversial issues, is the DAY OF WORSHIP

[bekkilyn]

Those wages are usually given to God. Legally, and for insurance purposes and taxes and such, they have to pay an employee. As a dialysis tech, what I earned on the Sabbath I gave to the church.

Oh I see, so it's okay to work on the sabbath provided that you donate your income to the temple? I wonder where that's found in scripture because Jesus randomly healing someone in an emergency situation (for no pay) is exactly the same as going to a medical job for a number of hours each day for income (whether your own or the church's)?

 

[bekkilyn]

The goal of a disciple was to come under a rabbi's yoke and learn from them how to obey the Torah by memorizing their teachings, by learning how to think and act like them, and by essentially becoming an imitation of them where if we've seen them, then we've seen the one who sent them.

This is probably the root of where we would begin to disagree because I don't agree that the purpose of new covenant disciples of Jesus Christ is to better learn to live under old covenant Jewish law.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Soyeong.

You made the following statement.

Legalism is placing man's traditions above God's Law, so people get bound to legalism when tell people not to obey it.

Where did you get that definition of legalism from, what was your source?

Legalism has nothing to do with any tradition.

Legalism is simply elevating the law to equivalence, or even above grace.

Even more accurately, legalism, is adding certain laws to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For example, a Gentile must be circumcised to be saved as a Christian. We saw this legal requirement added to the gospel in Acts 15, and we saw how the apostles countered this act of legalism.

The same is true of every law, all the letter of the law cannot save, when added to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are under grace and not under the law.

 

[klutedavid]

"To fulfill the Law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3).



In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Law, so if Jesus had done that, then he sinned as is therefore not our Savior, so yes it is unscriptural to extend the Law. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His Law.

Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people of his day had heard being taught about Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "you have heard that it was said" so the emphasis on the different from of communication is important. Jesus was sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by speaking against or making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the Law by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it as it was originally intended. For example:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While Scripture certainly instructs us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct us to hate our enemy, so that is what was wrong being taught about it. In Leviticus 19:17, it instructs us not to hate our brother, so again Jesus was not teaching anything brand new. The command not to look at a married woman with lust in our hearts is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts. "An eye for an eye" is a perfectly good guideline for fair sentencing where the punishment is in proportion to the crime, but it was not intended to be used in personal matters in order to justify revenge.



Paul was teaching about the purpose of why God gave that command, not extending the Law.



In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed of Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb and then concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast. The OT is full of important foreshadows that are rich with teachings about Christ and about God's plan of redemption, and Christ brings full substance to these foreshadows so that we can fully see what God was teaching us through them, which make them all the more important to continue to obey in remembrance of Christ. It is the Law of God, not the Law of the Jews, and it is instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, not instructions for how to live as a Jew.



In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples didn't keep the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the commands of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tration they made void the word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they were worshiping God in vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-13), so you should not interpret the next verses as Jesus turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for doing. Rather, he was simply sticking with the topic of conversation and his statement at the end of the conversation in Matthew 15:20 shows that he was still speaking against the man-made tradition of being made common by eating with unwashed hands and never jumped topics to speaking against obeying God.



If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160). So it is not speaking about changes in the content of the law like it now being righteous to commit murder or sinful to help the poor. Rather, in context it is speaking about a transition of the priesthood, which would also require there to be a transition of the law in regard to it administration.



That is clearly false:

Luke 23:56 Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.



Sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4) and the Law says to keep the Sabbath, so why do you think that the fact that they sinned means that it is ok for you to sin?



Hebrews 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,

This verse does not speak against the 7th day Sabbath, but rather it remains for the people of God.



In order for there to be set apart there needs to be something that it is set apart from, so every day can't be holy or else no day is holy. If we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work. The Israelites had daily prayers and offerings, so there is nothing wrong with worshiping God on every day on the week, and in fact that is a good thing, but that didn't stop them from also obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy. We can't worship God by refusing to obey His commands. In Matthew 11:28-30 and Jeremiah 6:16-19, the Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, so the rest comes from having faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, not from taking a break from following Him.

Only in Israel could someone rest on the national day of rest, the Sabbath. Outside of the nation of Israel you work on Saturday, because Saturday is not a national day of rest.

People become very confused about the Sabbath. The Jews were required by their national law to honor the Sabbath. The Gentiles were not required to honor the Sabbath.

Nor were Gentiles ever required to be circumcised, even though all the apostles and Jesus were circumcised. What more evidence to you need.

Do you think that Gentiles honor the Passover?

Do you think Gentiles have to become Jews?

 

[W2L]

The Sabbath(the 7th day) is a commanded day of rest

We are to worship every day, but we are to rest on the 7th day(the Sabbath)

This is what Jesus and the Apostles lived and taught.

Jesus and His disciples didnt rest on the sabbath. They did Gods works.

 

[Just Another User]

"To fulfill the Law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3).

Agreed. Certainty on the part of "as it should be."

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Law, so if Jesus had done that, then he sinned as is therefore not our Savior, so yes it is unscriptural to extend the Law. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His Law.

I'm assuming that you still sacrifice animals and you're circumcised? I would agree to a degree but God's command is to the people of Israel not to keep or take away from the law. God isn't under this obligation is he not? Furthermore, the Israelites broke their end of the bargain and thus God rejected his covenant with them. Jesus hasn't added or taking away laws. What Jesus was doing was taking the the Old Covenant laws to their extreme.

Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people of his day had heard being taught about Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "you have heard that it was said" so the emphasis on the different from of communication is important. Jesus was sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by speaking against or making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the Law by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it as it was originally intended. For example:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While Scripture certainly instructs us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct us to hate our enemy, so that is what was wrong being taught about it. In Leviticus 19:17, it instructs us not to hate our brother, so again Jesus was not teaching anything brand new.

I'll actually concede the point on "it is written" and "you have heard it was said".

Nevertheless, I'm confused. Where does it say in the Old Testament to love our enemies? I would agree that the Old Testament teaches to love neighbour but where does it say that we love our enemies? Isn't this by definition an extension of the previous law which was vacant in the Old Testament?

The command not to look at a married woman with lust in our hearts is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts.

You've said it yourself. This would be the correct application of adultery and lust however it would appear with our understanding of ancient Israel that the law lust in our hearts doesn't actually exist. Remember that Israel was a fleshly nation so thus it could only punish flesh crimes e.g. adultery. Since we now live in a spiritual nation under a new covenant, even lust is adultery now.

"An eye for an eye" is a perfectly good guideline for fair sentencing where the punishment is in proportion to the crime, but it was not intended to be used in personal matters in order to justify revenge.

The Ante-Nicene church fathers who touched on this topic would universally disagree with you on Christians committing/ advocating for such things. Of course you'll claim that their opinions don't matter since they're not Scripture but it's rather insulting to the Apostles that they couldn't preserve their doctrine after their death.

Paul was teaching about the purpose of why God gave that command, not extending the Law.

Exactly. We're agreed. You're seeming to be confused on the phrase "extended" and "add" in the context of the argument and quote from Irenaeus.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed of Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb and then concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast. The OT is full of important foreshadows that are rich with teachings about Christ and about God's plan of redemption, and Christ brings full substance to these foreshadows so that we can fully see what God was teaching us through them, which make them all the more important to continue to obey in remembrance of Christ. It is the Law of God, not the Law of the Jews, and it is instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, not instructions for how to live as a Jew.

You wriggled out of that one. The Old Testament Jews were commanded to sacrifice animals. That was a law. Everyone was suppose to keep it. Christians no longer sacrifice animals. Thus we're breaking the law under Deuteronomy 4:2. There's no Biblical distinction between moral laws and ceremonial laws either.

The word for abolished of Ephesians 2:15 (apparently for ceremonial laws) is also used in Romans 7:1-7 for the abolishment of the ten commandments.

Once again I agree of the point of the Law of God. the Law of God is clearly described in the Sermon on the Mount. The Law of the Jews is to the Jews. Day Sabbath keeping is one of them.

In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples didn't keep the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the commands of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tration they made void the word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they were worshiping God in vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-13), so you should not interpret the next verses as Jesus turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for doing. Rather, he was simply sticking with the topic of conversation and his statement at the end of the conversation in Matthew 15:20 shows that he was still speaking against the man-made tradition of being made common by eating with unwashed hands and never jumped topics to speaking against obeying God.

(I made a mistake. I meant to write Mark 7:18-19)

Wouldn't Mark 7:18-19 actually go against the Old Testament and the laws prescribed in there such as Leviticus 11:4-8?

If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:142, 160). So it is not speaking about changes in the content of the law like it now being righteous to commit murder or sinful to help the poor. Rather, in context it is speaking about a transition of the priesthood, which would also require there to be a transition of the law in regard to it administration.

So if all of God's laws are eternal then I assume you stone adulterous and don't wear mix fabric clothes. This God Laws/ Jewish law is also unfounded in Scripture. Nehemiah 8 interchangeably uses book of the law of Moses, the law of God and the law of God.

Saying that I think I'd actual agree with that. However, don;t you find it interesting that all the early Christians followed Christ's new teachings which of Gods and thus it meant that they were now greater than the Jews in righteousness (e.g. The real food law, the real Sabbath)

That is clearly false:

Luke 23:56 Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

My apologies. The actual statement was meant to be after the resurrection. With that alteration, my statement is objectively true.

All Christians worshiped the Lord's Day on Sunday. Never the Sabbath on Saturday. This is just undeniable.

Sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4) and the Law says to keep the Sabbath, so why do you think that the fact that they sinned means that it is ok for you to sin?

Vapid argument. I'm keeping a perpetual Sabbath while you're keeping a Day Sabbath. I guess you want all Christians that break the Sabbath to be executed do you not?

You didn't actually respond to the comment either. Ignatius who was appointed by the Apostle John to be head supervisor of Antioch (easily one of the most important areas in the Christian world) who wrote that quote in the early 100s or 110s argued heavily against the Sabbath. You are then logically claiming that the Apostle John couldn't actually appoint a decent supervisor to teach correct doctrine on such an important issue. Your position is insulting to all the Apostles' ability to choose people with the correct idea of the Sabbath.

Don't you find it interesting that everyone who talks about the Sabbath in the early church days spoke against a day Sabbath? Like literally everyone. Genuinely 100% of early Christians are against an Day Sabbath.

This verse does not speak against the 7th day Sabbath, but rather it remains for the people of God.

I agree.

In order for there to be set apart there needs to be something that it is set apart from, so every day can't be holy or else no day is holy. If we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work. The Israelites had daily prayers and offerings, so there is nothing wrong with worshiping God on every day on the week, and in fact that is a good thing, but that didn't stop them from also obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy. We can't worship God by refusing to obey His commands. In Matthew 11:28-30 and Jeremiah 6:16-19, the Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, so the rest comes from having faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, not from taking a break from following Him.

I totally agree on the point of obedience. I think it's refreshing that someone argues this. But of course we'll argue on the exact way to follow Christ and God.

 

[Soyeong]

This is probably the root of where we would begin to disagree because I don't agree that the purpose of new covenant disciples of Jesus Christ is to better learn to live under old covenant Jewish law.

Where do you disagree?

P1) The goal of a disciple is to become like their rabbi.
P2) Jesus lived in sinless obedience to God's Law.
C) Therefore, the goal of Jesus' disciples is to learn how to live in obedience to God's Law.

It is God's Law, not Jewish Law, and it is instructions to God's followers for how to walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others), not instructions for how to live as a Jew. So while I agree that we are under the New Covenant and not under the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same ways and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in His ways. For example, if the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. So the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, so it is going to be the same in all of God's covenants because straightforwardly because they are all made with the same God. This means that any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness will always be valid no matter which covenant we are under, but as part of the New Covenant we are told that those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). The New Covenant does not involve refusing to follow the Law that Jesus followed and taught his followers to obey by word and by example.

 

[bekkilyn]

Where do you disagree?

P1) The goal of a disciple is to become like their rabbi.
P2) Jesus lived in sinless obedience to God's Law.
C) Therefore, the goal of Jesus' disciples is to learn how to live in obedience to God's Law.

It is God's Law, not Jewish Law, and it is instructions to God's followers for how to walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others), not instructions for how to live as a Jew. So while I agree that we are under the New Covenant and not under the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same ways and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in His ways. For example, if the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness changed when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. So the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, so it is going to be the same in all of God's covenants because straightforwardly because they are all made with the same God. This means that any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness will always be valid no matter which covenant we are under, but as part of the New Covenant we are told that those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). The New Covenant does not involve refusing to follow the Law that Jesus followed and taught his followers to obey by word and by example.

The difference is in the Holy Spirit. We do not and cannot become righteous and gain salvation by obedience to the law. This Israelites proved it time and time again and is the reason why we need a Savior. If we could have done it on our own, there would have been no need for Jesus' sacrifice.

However, through Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection and his gift of the Holy Spirit, we are made righteous by *his* righteousness when we surrender our lives to him and receive him into our hearts. We are righteous because he lived a sinless life, because he is perfectly obedient, and because these things qualified him to be the Lamb who could wipe away all sin.

Through the Holy Spirit, when we allow the Spirit to begin to transform us, we *are* obedient to God's law. Not because we are striving to follow laws and commandments, but because we are walking with him. It's why the fulfillment of the sabbath isn't about a ceremonial observance of a day, but in WHO our rest comes from. Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

When we allow the Spirit to transform us, we do become more like our Lord and Savior, but not because we are learning to better follow old covenant laws, but because of who is in us and who is doing the work of this transformation in us. We can take no credit.

God's eternal law is himself. A person.

 

[Soyeong]

The difference is in the Holy Spirit. We do not and cannot become righteous and gain salvation by obedience to the law. This Israelites proved it time and time again and is the reason why we need a Savior. If we could have done it on our own, there would have been no need for Jesus' sacrifice.

However, through Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection and his gift of the Holy Spirit, we are made righteous by *his* righteousness when we surrender our lives to him and receive him into our hearts. We are righteous because he lived a sinless life, because he is perfectly obedient, and because these things qualified him to be the Lamb who could wipe away all sin.

Through the Holy Spirit, when we allow the Spirit to begin to transform us, we *are* obedient to God's law. Not because we are striving to follow laws and commandments, but because we are walking with him. It's why the fulfillment of the sabbath isn't about a ceremonial observance of a day, but in WHO our rest comes from. Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

When we allow the Spirit to transform us, we do become more like our Lord and Savior, but not because we are learning to better follow old covenant laws, but because of who is in us and who is doing the work of this transformation in us. We can take no credit.

God's eternal law is himself. A person.

I would agree that we can't become righteous and gain salvation by obedience to the Law primarily because the Law was never given for that purpose in the first place. So the fact that we aren't saved by obeying God doesn't mean that we don't still need to obey what God has commanded. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so obeying God's instructions was never about what we can do on our own, but about have faith in God to guide us by grace in how to rightly live. If the Law were God's instructions for how to become self-righteous and God doesn't want us to become self-righteous, then therefore God wouldn't want His followers to obey His commands, which would be absurd.

In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires, so we are not saved by our obedience, but rather the same grace and faith by which we are saved also requires our obedience, so obedience to God's Law is what faith looks like, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that it is only the doers of the Law who will be justified. He notably did not say that we are justified by obeying the Law, but rather obedience to the Law is a trait that everyone who will be justified has in common.

The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should obey, but rather in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to His Law. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's Law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it.

The life of Jesus is an example of someone who both expressed the fruits of the Spirit and lived in complete obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is one in the same, and our sanctification is about being made to be like him, to have an to express the same character traits. God's Law is His instructions for how to walk in his ways and express His character traits, so the person who is walking with God is living in obedience to those instructions. While our focus should always be on Christ, we straightforwardly can't be obedient to God's Law by not obeying what it commands us to do.

When we have a character trait, then we will express it through our actions, so when God imputes His righteousness to us and declares us to be righteous, He is also declaring us to be someone who therefore expresses His righteousness through our actions in obedience to His instructions for how to do that found in His Law. In other words, we have not received the righteousness of God in order to hide it under a bushel, but in order to let it shine through our actions. So the reason that we need to obey God's Law is not in order to become righteous, but because he has declared us to be righteous.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm assuming that you still sacrifice animals and you're circumcised?

Many laws have conditions under which they should be obeyed, such the command to keep the Sabbath, which should only be obeyed when it is the 7th day, so laws in regard to temple practice should only be obeyed when there is a temple in which to practice them. When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return was to return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to the temple, which they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so they were faithful to obey the laws that had their conditions met.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was on his way to pay for and join the purification rites of others who had untaken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Law. Furthermore, it says that Jesus would not be a priest if he were still on earth, and if the Law were no longer in effect, then it would have no power to do prevent that. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 44-46).

I would agree to a degree but God's command is to the people of Israel not to keep or take away from the law. God isn't under this obligation is he not? Furthermore, the Israelites broke their end of the bargain and thus God rejected his covenant with them. Jesus hasn't added or taking away laws. What Jesus was doing was taking the the Old Covenant laws to their extreme.

There are many verses that describe God's Law as being instructions for how to walk in God ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalm 103:7, and many others, the Law was not given as instructions for how to live as a Jew, but rather it was given to God's followers as instructions for how to walk in His ways and express His character traits, such as holiness, righteousness, goodnes, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. If the way to act in accordance with God's righteous changed when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness and all of His righteous laws would not be eternal (Psalms 119:142, 160). It was righteous to help the poor and to refrain from murder before the Mosaic Covenant was made, during it, and after it has become obsolete, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with his righteousness will always be valid regardless of which covenant we are under.

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

I'll actually concede the point on "it is written" and "you have heard it was said".

Nevertheless, I'm confused. Where does it say in the Old Testament to love our enemies?

Exodus 23:4-5 “If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. 5 If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.

Deuteronomy 23:7 You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.

Proverbs 24:17-18 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, 18 lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.

Proverbs 25:21-22 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, 22 for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.

You've said it yourself. This would be the correct application of adultery and lust however it would appear with our understanding of ancient Israel that the law lust in our hearts doesn't actually exist. Remember that Israel was a fleshly nation so thus it could only punish flesh crimes e.g. adultery. Since we now live in a spiritual nation under a new covenant, even lust is adultery now.

The Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are the character traits of God. If we correctly understand the principles behind the 7th and 10th Commandments, then we can understand how they interact and how they should be obeyed even if that isn't specifically stated.

The Ante-Nicene church fathers who touched on this topic would universally disagree with you on Christians committing/ advocating for such things. Of course you'll claim that their opinions don't matter since they're not Scripture but it's rather insulting to the Apostles that they couldn't preserve their doctrine after their death.

I'd have to look at what they said about this topic and why before I could disagree with them, but it sounds strange to me to think that they disagreed that a punishment should be proportion to the crime.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Messiah of Judaism and he practiced Judaism by sinlessly keepings all of its laws and by teaching his followers to obey them by word word and by example. All Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity at its origin was a sect of Judaism. Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome around 41-53 AD and the book of Romans was written address the problems that came up with Gentiles not wanting to come back under Jewish leadership, which they either did not listen to or understand. The early church fathers said some shockingly anti-Semitic things, so they sadly distanced themselves from the Jewish roots of their faith.

You wriggled out of that one. The Old Testament Jews were commanded to sacrifice animals. That was a law. Everyone was suppose to keep it. Christians no longer sacrifice animals. Thus we're breaking the law under Deuteronomy 4:2. There's no Biblical distinction between moral laws and ceremonial laws either.

The word for abolished of Ephesians 2:15 (apparently for ceremonial laws) is also used in Romans 7:1-7 for the abolishment of the ten commandments.

I agree that the Bible doesn't use the category of ceremonial law or that it distinguishes between moral and non-moral laws, but rather any disobedience to God is always immoral and sinful.

It would make no sense for Paul to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we have been made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works and then say just a few verses later that Christ abolished his instructions for how to do good works, so 2:15 is not referring to God's Law. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law and in Romans 3:31 Paul reiterated that our faith does not abolish God's Law. Furthermore, the law instructions us to love our neighbor, so it was not a dividing wall of hostility.

Likewise, Romans 7 has nothing to do with abolishing the Ten Commandments. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, which caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do, and which he served with his flesh. In Romans 7:6, Paul specified that we are freed from a law that held us captive, which firmly matches his description of the law of sin and does not at all match his description of the holy, righteous, and good Law of God that he delighted in obeying.

Once again I agree of the point of the Law of God. the Law of God is clearly described in the Sermon on the Mount. The Law of the Jews is to the Jews. Day Sabbath keeping is one of them.

In Isaiah 56:1-8, keeping the Sabbath is clearly also intended for all Gentiles who have affiliated themselves with the God of Israel.

(I made a mistake. I meant to write Mark 7:18-19)

Wouldn't Mark 7:18-19 actually go against the Old Testament and the laws prescribed in there such as Leviticus 11:4-8?

It only goes against Leviticus 11:4-8 if you interpreter Jesus as jumping topics to hypocritically speaking against obeying the Father rather than sticking with the topic of conversation.

So if all of God's laws are eternal then I assume you stone adulterous and don't wear mix fabric clothes. This God Laws/ Jewish law is also unfounded in Scripture. Nehemiah 8 interchangeably uses book of the law of Moses, the law of God and the law of God.

Saying that I think I'd actual agree with that. However, don;t you find it interesting that all the early Christians followed Christ's new teachings which of Gods and thus it meant that they were now greater than the Jews in righteousness (e.g. The real food law, the real Sabbath)

Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would be unjust to enforce a penalty that has already been paid. I do not wear clothes made mixed with wool and linen. You can't have superior instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness without following a superior God with superior righteousness.

My apologies. The actual statement was meant to be after the resurrection. With that alteration, my statement is objectively true.

The resurrection had nothing to do with ending any of God's eternal laws. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in Christ, then that should cause us to become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law (Acts 21:20) and should not cause us to return the the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.

All Christians worshiped the Lord's Day on Sunday. Never the Sabbath on Saturday. This is just undeniable.

They continued to keep the Sabbath all throughout Acts.

Vapid argument. I'm keeping a perpetual Sabbath while you're keeping a Day Sabbath. I guess you want all Christians that break the Sabbath to be executed do you not?

You didn't actually respond to the comment either.

Again, it would be unjust to enforce a penalty that has already been paid. Still, the fact that God considers breaking the Sabbath to be worthy of the death penalty and the fact that Jesus gave himself to pay that penalty should make us want to go and sin no more.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so when God has commanded His followers to keep the Sabbath and man says not to obey what God command, then we must obey God. I'm a follower of God, not Ignatius, and if that is disrespectful to him, then so be it. Tensions between Christians and non-believing Jews sadly cause the two groups to polarize fairly early.

I totally agree on the point of obedience. I think it's refreshing that someone argues this. But of course we'll argue on the exact way to follow Christ and God.

Do you agree that Jesus said an example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and that as his followers we are told to follow his example?

 

[mmksparbud]

Splitting up God's law as you have done is a human tradition and not supported by scripture. Jesus fulfilled ALL of the law, not just the parts that some humans find to be inconvenient to follow. If you're going to be under the law, you need to observe ALL of it.

And if you're going to observe the old covenant version of sabbath where you are observing a day of the week, then hopefully you're not cooking or using electricity (fire) or leaving your home or picking up sticks or any other type of work that could be done, unless of course, you're healing someone in an emergency situation.

It is not me that has done it--God did it to begin with! He is the one that instructed Moses to put the ordinances outside the Ark and the 10 inside the Ark, not me!! He is the one tha wrote the 10 eith His own hand and had Moses write the Levitical laws with his hand, God is the one who chose to write the 10 on stone and have Moses write his on paper--not me!! It is God and Jesus that replaced the sacrificial laws with Jesus s the sacrificial Lamb and thus the sacrificial laws are done away with---Not me! And it is not me that is saying that only 9 commandments are to be followed, but not the 4th because it is inconvenient to do so!! It messes with your schedules so just toss that one out and come up with no end of twisting of the scriptures to suit your convenient theories!! The 10 have nothing to dl with animal sacrifices. It was the animal sacrifice, instituted at the fall, with the first creature being killed by God Himself to clothe Adam and Eve and continuing with Abel, that pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus--not the Sabbath or any of the 10.

I don't think anyone has "kindled" a fire for several 100 years now. Well, have to rephrase that--there is a Kindle Fire that will set you back as much as $150.00, now!

First-- check out what the original language says: I'll have to split this up--it reads the Hebrew letters as characters and I end up with too many to post.

 

[mmksparbud]

Ex 20

8 >~REMEMBER(Verb) (זָכוֹר / za'khor) AT (אֶת / et) DAY (יוֹם / yom) the~CEASING (הַשַּׁבָּת / ha'sha'bat) to~>~much~SET.APART(Verb)~him (לְקַדְּשׁוֹ / lê'qad'sho)

Remember the day of ceasing, to set him apart.

9 SIX (שֵׁשֶׁת / shey'shet) DAY~s (יָמִים / ya'mim) you(ms)~will~SERVE(Verb) (תַּעֲבֹד / ta'a'vod) and~you(ms)~did~DO(Verb) (וְעָשִׂיתָ / wê'a'si'ta) ALL (כָּל / kol) BUSINESS~you(ms) (מְלַאכְתֶּךָ / mê'lakh'te'kha)

Six days you will serve, and you will do all your business,

10 and~DAY (וְיוֹם / wê'yom) the~SEVENTH (הַשְּׁבִיעִי / hash'vi'i) CEASING (שַׁבָּת / sha'bat) to~YHWH (לַיהוָה / la'YHWH) Elohiym~you(ms) (אֱלֹהֶיךָ / e'lo'hey'kha) NOT (לֹא / lo) you(ms)~will~DO(Verb) (תַעֲשֶׂה / ta'a'seh) ALL (כָל / khol) BUSINESS (מְלָאכָה / mê'la'khah) YOU(MS) (אַתָּה / a'tah) and~SON~you(ms) (וּבִנְךָ / u'vin'kha) and~DAUGHTER~you(ms) (וּבִתֶּךָ / u'vi'te'kha) SERVANT~you(ms) (עַבְדְּךָ / av'de'kha) and~BONDWOMAN~you(ms) (וַאֲמָתְךָ / wa'a'mat'kha) and~BEAST~you(ms) (וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ / uv'hem'te'kha) and~IMMIGRANT~you(ms) (וְגֵרְךָ / wê'ger'kha) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר / a'sher) in~GATE~s~you(ms) (בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ / bish'a'rey'kha)

and the seventh day is a ceasing to YHWH your Elohiym, you will not do any business, you and your son and your daughter, your servant and your bondwoman, and your beast, and your immigrant which is in your gates.

11 GIVEN.THAT (כִּי / ki) SIX (שֵׁשֶׁת / shey'shet) DAY~s (יָמִים / ya'mim) he~did~DO(Verb) (עָשָׂה / a'sah) YHWH (יְהוָה / YHWH) AT (אֶת / et) the~SKY~s2 (הַשָּׁמַיִם / ha'sha'ma'yim) and~AT (וְאֶת / wê'et) the~LAND (הָאָרֶץ / ha'a'rets) AT (אֶת / et) the~SEA (הַיָּם / hai'yam) and~AT (וְאֶת / wê'et) ALL (כָּל / kol) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר / a'sher) in~~them(m) (בָּם / bam) and~he~will~REST(Verb) (וַיָּנַח / wai'ya'nahh) in~the~DAY (בַּיּוֹם / ba'yom) the~SEVENTH (הַשְּׁבִיעִי / hash'vi'i) UPON (עַל / al) SO (כֵּן / keyn) he~did~much~KNEEL(Verb) (בֵּרַךְ / bey'rakh) YHWH (יְהוָה / YHWH) AT (אֶת / et) DAY (יוֹם / yom) the~CEASING (הַשַּׁבָּת / ha'sha'bat) and~he~will~much~SET.APART(Verb)~him (וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ / wai'qad'shey'hu)

Given that six days YHWH made the skies and the land, the sea and all which is in them, and he rested in the seventh day, therefore, YHWH exalted the day of the ceasing, and he set him apart.
Ex 31
15 SIX (שֵׁשֶׁת / shey'shet) DAY~s (יָמִים / ya'mim) he~will~be~DO(Verb) (יֵעָשֶׂה / yey'a'seh) [524] BUSINESS (מְלָאכָה / mê'la'khah) and~in~the~DAY (וּבַיּוֹם / u'vai'yom) the~SEVENTH (הַשְּׁבִיעִי / hash'vi'i) CEASING (שַׁבַּת / sha'bat) REST.PERIOD (שַׁבָּתוֹן / sha'ba'ton) SPECIAL (קֹדֶשׁ / qo'desh) to~YHWH (לַיהוָה / la'YHWH) ALL (כָּל / kol) the~DO(Verb)~ing(ms) (הָעֹשֶׂה / ha'o'seh) BUSINESS (מְלָאכָה / mê'la'khah) in~DAY (בְּיוֹם / bê'yom) the~CEASING (הַשַּׁבָּת / ha'sha'bat) >~DIE(Verb) (מוֹת / mot) he~will~be~make~DIE(Verb) (יוּמָת / yu'mat)

Six days business will be done, and in the seventh day there will be a ceasing, a rest period, a special time for YHWH, all the ones doing business in the day of the ceasing will surely be killed,

 

[mmksparbud]

Ex 35:

2 SIX (שֵׁשֶׁת / shey'shet) DAY~s (יָמִים / ya'mim) she~will~be~DO(Verb) (תֵּעָשֶׂה / tey'a'seh) BUSINESS (מְלָאכָה / mê'la'khah) and~in~the~DAY (וּבַיּוֹם / u'vai'yom) the~SEVENTH (הַשְּׁבִיעִי / hash'vi'i) he~will~EXIST(Verb) (יִהְיֶה / yih'yeh) to~~you(mp) (לָכֶם / la'khem) SPECIAL (קֹדֶשׁ / qo'desh) CEASING (שַׁבַּת / sha'bat) REST.PERIOD (שַׁבָּתוֹן / sha'ba'ton) to~YHWH (לַיהוָה / la'YHWH) ALL (כָּל / kol) the~DO(Verb)~ing(ms) (הָעֹשֶׂה / ha'o'seh) in~~him (בוֹ / vo) BUSINESS (מְלָאכָה / mê'la'khah) he~will~be~make~DIE(Verb) (יוּמָת / yu'mat)

Six days business will be done, and in the seventh day a special time will exist for you, it is a ceasing, a rest period for YHWH, anyone doing business in him will be killed.

3 NOT (לֹא / lo) you(mp)~will~much~BURN(Verb) (תְבַעֲרוּ / tê'va'a'ru) FIRE (אֵשׁ / eysh) in~ALL (בְּכֹל / bê'khol) SETTLING~s~you(mp) (מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם / mosh'vo'tey'khem) in~DAY (בְּיוֹם / bê'yom) the~CEASING (הַשַּׁבָּת / ha'sha'bat)

You will not ignite a fire in any of your settlings in the day of the ceasing,


Duet 5:

14 and~DAY (וְיוֹם / wê'yom) the~SEVENTH (הַשְּׁבִיעִי / hash'vi'i) CEASING (שַׁבָּת / sha'bat) to~YHWH (לַיהוָה / la'YHWH) Elohiym~you(ms) (אֱלֹהֶיךָ / e'lo'hey'kha) NOT (לֹא / lo) you(ms)~will~DO(Verb) (תַעֲשֶׂה / ta'a'seh) ALL (כָל / khol) BUSINESS (מְלָאכָה / mê'la'khah) YOU(MS) (אַתָּה / a'tah) and~SON~you(ms) (וּבִנְךָ / u'vin'kha) and~DAUGHTER~you(ms) (וּבִתֶּךָ / u'vi'te'kha) and~SERVANT~you(ms) (וְעַבְדְּךָ / wê'av'de'kha) and~BONDWOMAN~you(ms) (וַאֲמָתֶךָ / wa'a'ma'te'kha) and~OX~you(ms) (וְשׁוֹרְךָ / wê'shor'kha) and~DONKEY~you(ms) (וַחֲמֹרְךָ / wa'hha'mor'kha) and~ALL (וְכָל / wê'khol) BEAST~you(ms) (בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ / bê'hem'te'kha) and~IMMIGRANT~you(ms) (וְגֵרְךָ / wê'ger'kha) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר / a'sher) in~GATE~s~you(ms) (בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ / bish'a'rey'kha) to~THAT (לְמַעַן / lê'ma'an) he~will~REST(Verb) (יָנוּחַ / ya'nu'ahh) SERVANT~you(ms) (עַבְדְּךָ / av'de'kha) and~BONDWOMAN~you(ms) (וַאֲמָתְךָ / wa'a'mat'kha) like~THAT.ONE~you(ms) (כָּמוֹךָ / ka'mo'kha)

and the seventh day is a ceasing for YHWH your Elohiym, you will not do business, you and your sons and your daughters and your servants and your bondwomen and your ox and your donkey and all your beasts and your immigrants that are in your gates, so that your servant will rest, and your bondwomen, like you,

 

[mmksparbud]

Exo_35:3

You will not ignite a fire in any of your settlings in the day of the ceasing,

3 NOT (לֹא / lo) you(mp)~will~much~BURN(Verb)

BURN(Verb) (בער / b.ah.r) To undergo rapid combustion or consume fuel in such a way as to give off heat, gases, and, usually, light; be on fire; have fierce anger | Alt. Trans.: ignite (when written in the piel [active intensive] form) | Strong's: #1197
The would light a fire before Sabbath and keep it going.

Jews see this as anything that "creates a spark" -- they will walk up 5 flights of stairs on the Sabbath rather than take an elevator or escalator. The commandment reads no work and climbing 5 flights of stairs to me seems like a lot more work than pushing a button!

Oh I see, so it's okay to work on the sabbath provided that you donate your income to the temple? I wonder where that's found in scripture because Jesus randomly healing someone in an emergency situation (for no pay) is exactly the same as going to a medical job for a number of hours each day for income (whether your own or the church's)?

You are then doing acts of kindness for others--doing good not being paid for it. The hospital has to pay you--and most SDA hospitals have a salary, instead of by the hour to avoid that as much as possible. The sick have to be taken care of, the elderly and children--would you rather we let them die? It is to not work on the Sabbath, nor those in your home---what happens outside the home is not under our control--the city water and electric company are not in our home. Some Jews will turn on the lights and oven before Sabbath and leave them on all day so as to not create a spark. At some point it becomes a matter of who is the one that is being legalistic about all this--Those who insist we are to keep it according to how they interpret the scriptures (though they themselves do not keep it) or those of us who actually do try to keep it by not working, resting and honoring and worshipping God on that day and by doing good.

 

[mmksparbud]

Hello Soyeong.

You made the following statement.

Where did you get that definition of legalism from, what was your source?

Legalism has nothing to do with any tradition.

Legalism is simply elevating the law to equivalence, or even above grace.

Even more accurately, legalism, is adding certain laws to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For example, a Gentile must be circumcised to be saved as a Christian. We saw this legal requirement added to the gospel in Acts 15, and we saw how the apostles countered this act of legalism.

The same is true of every law, all the letter of the law cannot save, when added to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are under grace and not under the law.

Circumcision was not one of the 10--it is under the ordinances--which were nailed to the coss.

 

[mmksparbud]

This is probably the root of where we would begin to disagree because I don't agree that the purpose of new covenant disciples of Jesus Christ is to better learn to live under old covenant Jewish law.

The old covenant law was the law of sacrifices and ordinances not the 10. The 7th day Sabbath was instituted by God on the 7th day of creation--no Jews yet.
Interesting that there really is no question that we are not to do any of the other 9---no one can honestly say that you can be an unrepentant murderer, thief, liar, covetous person or one who dishonors their parents, adulterer, or worship other gods and still be saved. It is only the one commandment that God says we are to remember that everyone wants to forget. We are not saved by keeping any of these, but we can certainly be lost by unrepentantly breaking any of those others. And yet, we are supposed to be free to unrepentantly break the only one He says to remember!

 

[ace of hearts]

More Bible - less creative writing please. You are dividing the members of the Trinity against themselves... that idea does not work.

Rev 4 and 5 is Scripture last time I checked and was informed. That isn't creative writing on my part.

Your comment that I'm dividing the Trinity agasinst itself needs some explaining. I think Revelation is very clear and doesn't pit one against the other as you claim I'm doing.

John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

I note here by your quote the Word (Jesus) was with God in verse 2. This doesn't deny that the Word isn't God as verse one says. In fact verse one says the Word was with God.

Verse three says all things came into being by God. It doesn't say all things came into being thru the Word, Who was with God.

This isn't dividing the members of the Trinity against themselves as you claim. It's in full agreement with Rev4 and 5.

Clearly that is Jesus

Col 1 - 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Clearly that is Jesus

To the casual or careless reader it seems to say that. Let's start with verse
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

I ask Who did what? The subject is The Father.

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Same question here for verse 13.

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Same question here. In this verse The Father isn't the subject, Jesus is. One must be careful to note the colon ) at the end of each verse. That makes the statements inserts of other concepts or ideas.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Once again, Who is what? And notice the colon. If we take out these inserts we have -
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: ...For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

That fully agrees with Revelation 4 and 5. I didn't change God's word as you will claim.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

I'm not going to argue about how the Trinity came into existence. It should be self evident that a father comes before a son. Without God (the Father) nothing consists.

Now I'm done arguing about creation and Who did what.

And Heb 8:6-10 says it is Jesus speaking the Sabbath commandment at Sinai

There's no such evidence.

In Genesis 1 the term for God is plural - it is all the Trinity taking action in creation. You cannot single out one of them and add the nonsensical "not the Creator" because such divisions are not supportable in scripture.

Simply quoting Genesis 1 won't void Revelation 4 and 5.

It is the Bible but you don't quote it saying "The Creator of heaven and earth isn't Jesus" you merely quote "you" then slap on reference text that does not say it.

Obviously either you haven't read Rev 4 and 5 or you disagree with inspired text and throw it out.

By contrast I gave you the Bible texts showing that Jesus is in fact the Creator not just the Father as the Creator or just the Holy Spirit.

I understand that's what you believe. John 1 doesn't teach Jesus is the Creator.

Until you read it

John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Only for the casual or one with an agenda looking for a proof text. Unfortunately for you I'm a technical reader. Yes we're arguing about a technical point.

John says "ALL things came into being THROUGH Him"

And Col 1
Col 1 - 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Clearly that is Jesus "BY HIM all things were CREATED" -- the very thing you claim is impossible.

No because the Lamb doesn't sit on the throne. Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, the Father. See Eph 1:20.

Both-and not Either-or.

Both Jesus and the Father are in the Godhead as is the Holy Spirit and ALL of them regarded as "Creator" -- in the Christian monotheistic model.

Out of curiosity why do you feel you must argue against the text of John 1 and Col 1 - in your response to the "Day of worship" topic?

I first responded to a comment about creation and Who did what. So I must ask you the same question - why do you feel a need to bring up and and try to argue against consistency of Scripture?

"Christ is LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28 is that what is a challenge for your position?

No after reading the context. Also wondering if that's all Christ is Lord of because of what you intend the selected out of context quote to mean. After all isn't Jesus the sole One responsible for creating the other days according to you?

 

[ace of hearts]

Interesting creative writing but not exegesis -- not the Bible.

Your buddy quoted Acts 1:2. They already had the law. Why would there be a comment the Holy Ghost gave commandments if they already had them?

Heb 8:6-10 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 make it clear that the NEW Covenant has the "Law of God" written on the heart. And that it is the LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers (that would be "exegesis") - is written on the heart and mind. And all Bible scholars admit they knew about the TEN commandments in Ex 20 and that ONLY the TEN were kept inside the ark. ONLY the Ten written by God at Sinai - and that was Christ according to Hebrews 8.

No they don't because of the word "new" and the phrase "not according to" which you chose to ignore or change the meaning of.

You have avoided this key detail a number of times.

Matt 19 Jesus said "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "WHICH ONES?" -- you have suggested that He should then quote 1 John 3:23 - which He does not. In Matt 19 He quotes from the "TEN" just like Paul does in Romans 13. Your argument is "with the text" in each case.

So your intention here must be that we can have eternal life by keeping the famous 10. Scripture says no twice in the Psalms and Jesus proved this point causing the man to leave sorrowful. One can only have life through the blood of the Lamb. You claim it's that plus our own works of the flesh. A works orientation is promoted by religion and not the Scripture.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jesus is talking about the OT Scripture here meaning the law.

 

[bekkilyn]

I would agree that we can't become righteous and gain salvation by obedience to the Law primarily because the Law was never given for that purpose in the first place. So the fact that we aren't saved by obeying God doesn't mean that we don't still need to obey what God has commanded. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so obeying God's instructions was never about what we can do on our own, but about have faith in God to guide us by grace in how to rightly live. If the Law were God's instructions for how to become self-righteous and God doesn't want us to become self-righteous, then therefore God wouldn't want His followers to obey His commands, which would be absurd.

In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires, so we are not saved by our obedience, but rather the same grace and faith by which we are saved also requires our obedience, so obedience to God's Law is what faith looks like, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that it is only the doers of the Law who will be justified. He notably did not say that we are justified by obeying the Law, but rather obedience to the Law is a trait that everyone who will be justified has in common.

The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should obey, but rather in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to His Law. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's Law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it.

The life of Jesus is an example of someone who both expressed the fruits of the Spirit and lived in complete obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is one in the same, and our sanctification is about being made to be like him, to have an to express the same character traits. God's Law is His instructions for how to walk in his ways and express His character traits, so the person who is walking with God is living in obedience to those instructions. While our focus should always be on Christ, we straightforwardly can't be obedient to God's Law by not obeying what it commands us to do.

When we have a character trait, then we will express it through our actions, so when God imputes His righteousness to us and declares us to be righteous, He is also declaring us to be someone who therefore expresses His righteousness through our actions in obedience to His instructions for how to do that found in His Law. In other words, we have not received the righteousness of God in order to hide it under a bushel, but in order to let it shine through our actions. So the reason that we need to obey God's Law is not in order to become righteous, but because he has declared us to be righteous.

God's "law" is not the Mosaic law, which includes the ten commandments given specifically to Israel at Sinai. They are a mere shadow of God's truth, which is his person, his very being. We cannot limit God to a set of commandments as he is eternal and limitless. Being obedient to a set of commandments, even if given by God to a specific people for a specific purpose, is not the same as being obedient to God himself. We are obedient to God himself through Jesus Christ. The ten commandments of the Sinai covenant are not God.

When we are transformed by the Spirit, our actions will be a reflection of God, but not because we are diligently following commandments and ordinances and laws, but because the Holy Spirit is leading us and will not lead us astray. Some results may be the same (we don't commit adultery because a commandment tells us not to vs. we don't commit adultery because the Spirit leads us away from such a thing) but obeying commandments is an act of trying to become righteous through our own effort vs. being led by the Spirit which is an act of God through us.

Also, when Jesus was demonstrating his obedience to old covenant law, the old covenant was still in place for Jews as Jesus had not yet fulfilled it through his death and resurrection. It is not his intent for us to continue under the old covenant, even for those who are Jews, but to fully embrace his new covenant which is obedience through surrender to him, to his Lordship, and his new commandment (not in the ten commandments or anywhere else in Mosaic law) was to love others as HE loves his church. Huge difference even from the Golden Rule. Following a set of laws isn't going to help us there because again, it has everything to do with surrender and submission and being a servant.

 

[bekkilyn]

Exo_35:3

You will not ignite a fire in any of your settlings in the day of the ceasing,

3 NOT (לֹא / lo) you(mp)~will~much~BURN(Verb)

BURN(Verb) (בער / b.ah.r) To undergo rapid combustion or consume fuel in such a way as to give off heat, gases, and, usually, light; be on fire; have fierce anger | Alt. Trans.: ignite (when written in the piel [active intensive] form) | Strong's: #1197
The would light a fire before Sabbath and keep it going.

Jews see this as anything that "creates a spark" -- they will walk up 5 flights of stairs on the Sabbath rather than take an elevator or escalator. The commandment reads no work and climbing 5 flights of stairs to me seems like a lot more work than pushing a button!

You are then doing acts of kindness for others--doing good not being paid for it. The hospital has to pay you--and most SDA hospitals have a salary, instead of by the hour to avoid that as much as possible. The sick have to be taken care of, the elderly and children--would you rather we let them die? It is to not work on the Sabbath, nor those in your home---what happens outside the home is not under our control--the city water and electric company are not in our home. Some Jews will turn on the lights and oven before Sabbath and leave them on all day so as to not create a spark. At some point it becomes a matter of who is the one that is being legalistic about all this--Those who insist we are to keep it according to how they interpret the scriptures (though they themselves do not keep it) or those of us who actually do try to keep it by not working, resting and honoring and worshipping God on that day and by doing good.

By your definition, ANY work (besides that specifically done for evil intent) is doing acts of kindness for others.

The fact is, no matter how much you may try and try and try to keep the old covenant sabbath, you are failing to keep it. You are not obedient to it. In fact, it is not possible to remain obedient to it. Even keeping it 99% is still failing to keep it. Trying to keep it doesn't cut it any more than not keeping it because you're still not keeping it. Our *trying* to obey laws means nothing. They are as filthy rags in God's eyes. That's the entire point of the law...to show us how desperately we need a Savior. That's why under the new covenant, our obedience is in *Christ* and our surrender to him, and not by obeying a set of laws. We are obedient to sabbath and to any other of God's laws by being in Christ and allowing his Spirit to do his work through us. His will, not ours. He wants our heart, not our sacrifices.